"From the above, it is evident that there is direct evidence of conspiracy against all the accused persons as in their voluntary statements and the testimony of PW 2 who told the Court how the accused persons confronted him and even threatened to kill him place (sic) of the deceased at the earliest stage. Furthermore, the circumstances of this case are inferable to the only conclusion that the accused persons conspired to kill the deceased. In the case of Ono Chie v. The Republic (1966) 1 All N.L.R. 86 it was held that the proof of conspiracy can even be inferred from the circumstances of a case.

Furthermore, it should be made clear that once the prosecution succeed in proving the existence of conspiracy, as in this case at hand, evidence admissible against one conspirator is also admissible against the other. See the cases of Oyediran v. The Republic (1967) NWLR 122; Erin v. The State (1994) 6 SCNJ 104, 106 and Muminu v. The State (1975) 6 S.C. 79

Thus, in the present case the only inference one can draw from the testimony of PWS 2, 5 and 6 and the voluntary statements of the accused persons in Exhibits E, F, G, H, J, and K is that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th accused persons conspired and killed Abdullahi Alhaji Umaru.

I shall then consider the charge of abatement preferred against the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th accused persons.

The evidence in this respect against the 1st accused person is that after the deceased was arrested and detained at the outskirts of Kardi near the burial ground, he went along with the 2nd and 4th accused persons to the house of the Village Head to inform him about happenings and on their return to the scene of crime, he was the person who read from the Risala thereby authorizing the killing of the deceased. This fact is contained in the testimony of PW 2, 5 and the voluntary statement of the accused as in Exhibit J. I am therefore satisfied that the act of the accused facilitate the killing of the deceased."

"I observed that the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused persons were not shown to have used any physical assault against the deceased but there is unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence as I already found under the charge of criminal conspiracy that the accused persons were joint actors. In such a situation the law is that it is same as if each of them had done the act directly leading to the death of Abdullah Alhaji Umaru individually. Each of them is not only liable for his own acts but also for the sum of the acts of his fellow conspirators in furtherance of their common intention; actual presence together with their conduct means participation in the offence. The accused persons were present at the scene not as mere on lookers but with the purpose of ensuring that Abdullah Alhaji Umaru was killed. See the cases of Nyam v. The State (1964) 1 AU NLR 361 and Buje v. The State (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 185) page 287 at 298-304.

I am therefore satisfied that the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused persons were equally guilty under Section 22 (a) of the Penal Code. I found that the act of accused persons was done with the intention of causing the death of the deceased.

It is worthy to note that the backbone of this case is the testimony of PWS 2, 3, 5 and 6. Exhibit D and the confessional and voluntary statements of the accused persons in Exhibits E, F, G, H, J and K. Each one of the accused persons admitted taking part and remaining at the scene where Abdullah Alhaji Umaru was killed in a brutal manner. Each of them narrated fully the role he played. The 3rd accused admitted striking the deceased with a matchet on the neck, the 5th accused admitted slaughtering the deceased with a knife, the 6th accused admitted holding and pulling the deceased to the last destination, the 1st accused admitted giving the authority to kill the deceased while the 2nd and 4th accused (sic) admitted going up and down to ensure that the deceased was punished. I have carefully examined these statements and found that they are at all material times in corroboration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the account of the death of Abdullah Alhaji Umaru. I noted that the statements were duly endorsed by a Superior Police Officer and were tendered without objection. I found the statement of each of the accused persons positive, direct, voluntary and consistent. From the evidence adduced the accused persons had every opportunity to commit the offence. In Kami v. The State (1952) 14 WACA 30, 32, Combey J. said:-

'A voluntary confession of guilt, if it be fully consistent and probable, is justly regarded as evidence of the high test and most satisfactory whenever there is independent proof that a criminal act has been committed by someone.'

In the case at hand there is evidence that Abdullahi Umaru was brutally killed and there is the confession of the accused persons to that effect. In Philip Ekpenyong v. The State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) page 683, 704 the Court of Appeal held:-

'A person may be convicted on his own confession alone, there being no law against it. The law is that if a man makes a free and voluntary confession which is direct and positive and is properly proved, the Court may if it thinks fit, convict him of any crime upon it.....once a statement complies with the law and the rules governing the method for taking it and it is tendered and not objected to by the defence whereby it was admitted as an Exhibit, then it is a good evidence and no amount of retraction will vitiate its admission as a voluntary statement.

I am satisfied that the confessional statements of the accused persons were voluntary, free, direct, positive, properly recorded, tendered and admitted in evidence. I see no reason to decline acting on them."